DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS order shall finally decide C.W.J.C. No. 5541 of 2003 (Dharmendra Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 10540 of 2003 (Dharmendra Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

(3.) THE facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was elected as Pramukh under Certificate dated 15.6.2001 (Annexure -1). It appears that number of the members of the Panchayat Samiti expressed their no confidence in the Pramukh and made a representation to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya that the Pramukh, Dharmendra Kumar be removed from his office and new Pramukh be elected. It appears that the Sub -Divisional Officer after receiving the application referred the same to the Block Development Officer who in his turn wrote letter dated 16.5.2002 to the Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti annexing a copy of the no confidence motion with a request to him that in accordance with Section 42 of the Act a meeting be held within 15 days. It appears that in the meanwhile a Division Bench of this Court made certain observations therefore, the meeting could not be conducted. After the said judgment of the Division Bench was explained by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mithilesh Singh & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2002(4) PLJR 76 (SC), under Annexure -5 some of the members who were party to the no confidence motion made an application to the Block Development Officer that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court the matter relating to no confidence be taken up. The Block Development Officer issued a notice to the petitioner that in accordance with law a meeting for consideration of the no confidence be held and if he fails to do the same then the meeting would be convened on 24.12.2002. It appears that the petitioner did not direct conduction of the meeting therefore the meeting was convened on 24.12.2002. The petitioner, it appears, lost to prove the confidence of the members therefore the said no confidence motion was carried against him. Annexure -8 is the order passed by Block Development Officer, Manpur, Gaya observing that the petitioner stands relieved from the office of the Pramukh. The petitioner submits that the meeting could not be convened on 24.12.2002 because the notice of no confidence motion or a request to convene the special meeting for the special purpose was never addressed to the petitioner. He submits that if a meeting is required to be conducted in accordance with the provision of iaw then such a meeting should be conducted or convened as provided under the law only. He submits that if the motion of no confidence and the proceedings dated 24.12.2002 fall then no vacancy would occur and the authorities would not be entitled to hold the fresh elections and under such circumstances the election subsequently held would also fall to ground.